Far too often they do things like this:
Hillary Clinton's chief campaign strategist met with Colombia's ambassador to the U.S. on Monday to discuss a bilateral free-trade agreement, a pact the presidential candidate opposes.
Attendance by the adviser, Mark Penn, was confirmed by two Colombian officials. He wasn't there in his campaign role, but in his separate job as chief executive of Burson-Marsteller Worldwide, an international communications and lobbying firm. The firm has a contract with the South American nation to promote congressional approval of the trade deal, among other things, according to filings with the Justice Department.Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, Mr. Penn's campaign-consulting firm, received more than $10 million in payments from the Clinton campaign as of the end of February, according to federal election filings.
Mr. Penn declined to comment. Howard Wolfson, communications director for Sen. Clinton's campaign, said in an email that "Mark was not there on behalf of the campaign" and referred further questions to Burson-Marsteller. "Sen. Clinton's opposition to the trade deal with Colombia is clear," Mr. Wolfson added....
Both Democratic presidential candidates have taken criticism for positions and private statements of their advisers on trade and other matters.
Sen. Clinton's victory last month in Ohio was credited in part to reports that Sen. Obama's economic adviser had raised doubts with Canadian officials over Sen. Obama's opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement.
As the fight turns to the April 22 Pennsylvania primary, both Democrats continue to campaign against trade agreements.
"We've got to have new trade policies before we have new trade deals," Sen. Clinton told the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO on Tuesday. "That includes no trade deal with Colombia while violence against trade unionists continues in that country."
Sen. Obama also opposes that deal....
Mr. Penn has been scrutinized over the dual roles he holds with his firm and the Clinton campaign. Burson-Marsteller's contract advising the Colombian government is one of several examples of the firm advising clients on causes Sen. Clinton has opposed.
This is really just unbelievably foolish. Sen. Clinton is running to be President of the United States. You would think she would make sure that one of her most senior advisors would take care not to do things that would so obviously create a conflict of interest. At the very same time he is being paid tens of millions of dollars to create strategy for her, he is also working to create strategy for a group seeking approval of a trade deal that Sen. Clinton opposes? And neither he nor she sees a problem with this? Really?
UPDATE: Patrick over at Sullivan's place puts this into context:
The irony of Penn's actions is astounding. Here is what Clinton said during Obama's NAFTA flap:
I would ask you to look at this story and substitute my name for Sen. Obama's name and see what you would do with this story... Just ask yourself [what you would do] if some of my advisers had been having private meetings with foreign governments.
In Obama's case, it was a part-time economic advisor who was having the meeting. In Clinton's? It was her top political strategist and pollster.
Al Giordano highlights an additional point of interest:
I can't remember a presidential campaign in my lifetime in which the top strategist moonlighted for corporate accounts during the heat of the primaries (if that's really what he was doing with the Colombian ambassador, as claimed: note that the Embassy told the Journal that it didn't know which hat Penn was wearing). The conflict of interest is staggering.
Sen. Clinton asked us to imagine what would happen if it were her name in the story instead of Obama's. I guess we don't need to imagine anymore, do we?
Subscribe to this blog's feed
